Not all calories are equal

asiandoll77
asiandoll77 Posts: 1 Member
edited November 13 in Food and Nutrition
I usually drink my coffee with Nestle's chocolate syrup (1/2 T) and real cream (2tsp). I only have one cup in the morning with breakfast. I had a coupon for International Delights creamer so decided to try it. Checked it for high fructose corn syrup and there wasn't any. I measure EVERYTHING, only added enough to come about even with the calorie count of my coffee with the chocolate syrup and cream. For 2 weeks, my weight gradually crept up and up again. I went back to my old way and the weight is dropping off again. Anyone else have a similar problem with this or other products?
«134

Replies

  • thelovelyLIZ
    thelovelyLIZ Posts: 1,227 Member
    Two weeks isn't really long enough to draw any concrete conclusion. Could be the ID, could be something else. My weight can swing 5 lbs in any direction on any given day. Most people are only losing 1-2lbs a week so that's a max 4lbs which is well within that.

    That being said, I always prefer real ingredients to processed products. Not even from a calorie perspective, I just think real food us better.
  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 Member
    *portions. Ugh...headache typing sucks. :/
  • geneticexpectations
    geneticexpectations Posts: 146 Member
    I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."
  • geneticexpectations
    geneticexpectations Posts: 146 Member
    stevencloser wrote: »
    geneticexpectations wrote: »
    I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."

    Definitely not which kind of 10 ml creamer you use in your morning coffee.

    Haha, yeah definitely not. :) But to be constructive, the ensuing discussion probably should have gone broader
  • geneticexpectations
    geneticexpectations Posts: 146 Member
    edited November 2016
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    geneticexpectations wrote: »
    I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."

    No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.

    I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)

    But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.

    Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!

    I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.

    How you are addressing the topic is more useful I think.

    Language can often be inflammatory and incite frustation. I think a calorie from x food and a calorie from y food is of course equal or else they would be called something else if they weren't equal. A unit of whatever measurement is just what it is. And I think attacking that fact can really piss off a lot of people.

    I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss? I admit, I don't really count calories, but I found that I have had a sustained dramatic fat loss for about 4 years by changing what I ate (200 lbs at >35% body fat to 150 lbs at <15% body fat). I'm not denying CICO, nor am I denying that it's more complex than CICO. I'm just stating the action and consequence - that changing what I ate without any sort of calorie awareness whatsoever seemed to work well for me. And I guess I enjoyed it b/c I don't really like counting and measuring. I know that may be weird to some, but I dunno, it is what it is. Anyone else?
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    geneticexpectations wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    geneticexpectations wrote: »
    I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."

    No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.

    I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)

    But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.

    Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!

    I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.

    How you are addressing the topic is more useful I think.

    Language can often be inflammatory and incite frustation. I think a calorie from x food and a calorie from y food is of course equal or else they would be called something else if they weren't equal. A unit of whatever measurement is just what it is. And I think attacking that fact can really piss off a lot of people.

    I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss? I admit, I don't really count calories, but I found that I have had a sustained dramatic fat loss for about 4 years by changing what I ate (200 lbs at >35% body fat to 150 lbs at <15% body fat). I'm not denying CICO, nor am I denying that it's more complex than CICO. I'm just stating the action and consequence - that changing what I ate without any sort of calorie awareness whatsoever seemed to work well for me. And I guess I enjoyed it b/c I don't really like counting and measuring. I know that may be weird to some, but I dunno, it is what it is. Anyone else?

    Of course...eating more whole foods or otherwise "cleaning up" one's diet for example is usually going to be beneficial to weight loss for the simple fact that it's harder to overeat whole foods...it's much easier to overeat a heavily processed food that has a high calorie to low nutrient ratio.

    I don't count calories and eat a largely whole foods based diet for that very reason. I'm in a cut right now due to some weight gain while nursing and injury...all I'm doing is not drinking beer during the week. It absolutely still comes down to calories though...I'm cutting out about 800 calories worth of beer daily.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    geneticexpectations wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    geneticexpectations wrote: »
    I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."

    No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.

    I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)

    But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.

    Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!

    I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.

    How you are addressing the topic is more useful I think.

    Language can often be inflammatory and incite frustation. I think a calorie from x food and a calorie from y food is of course equal or else they would be called something else if they weren't equal. A unit of whatever measurement is just what it is. And I think attacking that fact can really piss off a lot of people.

    I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss? I admit, I don't really count calories, but I found that I have had a sustained dramatic fat loss for about 4 years by changing what I ate (200 lbs at >35% body fat to 150 lbs at <15% body fat). I'm not denying CICO, nor am I denying that it's more complex than CICO. I'm just stating the action and consequence - that changing what I ate without any sort of calorie awareness whatsoever seemed to work well for me. And I guess I enjoyed it b/c I don't really like counting and measuring. I know that may be weird to some, but I dunno, it is what it is. Anyone else?

    You don't have to count calories in order to create and benefit from a calorie deficit. Counting is the easiest way for some people to reach a deficit, but others find that changing the foods they eat can put them in a deficit reliably without the need to count. This is why some people will have success with non-counting plans that eliminate or limit certain types of food.

    It's not weird at all -- it's just another way to get to the same destination.
  • not_a_runner
    not_a_runner Posts: 1,343 Member
    edited December 2016
    I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss? I admit, I don't really count calories, but I found that I have had a sustained dramatic fat loss for about 4 years by changing what I ate (200 lbs at >35% body fat to 150 lbs at <15% body fat). I'm not denying CICO, nor am I denying that it's more complex than CICO. I'm just stating the action and consequence - that changing what I ate without any sort of calorie awareness whatsoever seemed to work well for me. And I guess I enjoyed it b/c I don't really like counting and measuring. I know that may be weird to some, but I dunno, it is what it is. Anyone else?

    Most people WILL lose weight by "changing what they eat" if they actually stick with it. If I typically eat pizza for supper and replace that with a salad, of course I'll lose weight. I've drastically cut my calorie intake.
    Same result if I went from eating 8 slices of pizza per meal to 2 though.
    Sure you're changing "what you eat", but you still created a calorie deficit, whether that was your intent or not. You could just as easily do that by controlling portions.
  • ominousdusk
    ominousdusk Posts: 62 Member
    geneticexpectations wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    geneticexpectations wrote: »
    I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."

    No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.

    I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)

    But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.

    Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!

    I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.

    How you are addressing the topic is more useful I think.

    Language can often be inflammatory and incite frustation. I think a calorie from x food and a calorie from y food is of course equal or else they would be called something else if they weren't equal. A unit of whatever measurement is just what it is. And I think attacking that fact can really piss off a lot of people.

    I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss? I admit, I don't really count calories, but I found that I have had a sustained dramatic fat loss for about 4 years by changing what I ate (200 lbs at >35% body fat to 150 lbs at <15% body fat). I'm not denying CICO, nor am I denying that it's more complex than CICO. I'm just stating the action and consequence - that changing what I ate without any sort of calorie awareness whatsoever seemed to work well for me. And I guess I enjoyed it b/c I don't really like counting and measuring. I know that may be weird to some, but I dunno, it is what it is. Anyone else?


    Yes I agree. After my second baby I did CICO, worked out, weighed my food, and tracked the calories. I lost the 30lbs but it took me a year to do so. After this last baby, I am doing keto. Exactly the same amount of calories just different macros. I lost 30lbs in 4 months. Same calories, different macros, but the weight loss was MUCH quicker this time. Not only that but i noticed a few changes in how I feel in terms of energy and hunger levels. so I do think that changing what you eat effects weight loss.
  • ominousdusk
    ominousdusk Posts: 62 Member
    edited November 2016
    Hornsby wrote: »
    Keto is still CICO. We're you weighing and measuring food when you weren't on Keto?

    yes i said i was. the only difference was macros
    eta to add the only difference in what i ate was macros. my activity level was a little higher after my second. so technically I was eating at a slightly larger deficit when I was losing weight at a slower rate.
  • not_a_runner
    not_a_runner Posts: 1,343 Member
    I don't think we as humans can look back and say "last time I ate x calories and lost x pounds and now I lost faster" unless we have actually and honestly recorded everything 100% (which is basically impossible to do, we don't know accurate calories in EVERYTHING, and we aren't this honest with ourselves).
    I have had months where I think "I ate the same 2000 calories a day as I did last time, why didn't I lose any weight this month?" Well, I've overlooked all the days I DIDN'T actually eat that much and in fact ate MUCH more, or skipped many workouts etc.
    Sure I thought I was eating the same calories, but if I'm honest with myself I was eating more, doing less, and can't claim one to be better.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited November 2016
    geneticexpectations wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    geneticexpectations wrote: »
    I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."

    No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.

    I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)

    But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.

    Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!

    I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.

    But OP apparently doesn't, and I see such claims here all the time, so I am not sure that's at all clear.
    I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss?

    It's a way to control calories, sure. But that doesn't support OP's statement, and I think it's important to show the fact that ideas of magic foods that make you fat (in any amount) and foods that make you thin (regardless of calories) needs to be combated, because it's so common.

    If you wanted to start a thread about how food choice can be an approach to weight loss or maintenance or that one way to deal with societal obesity would be by encouraging healthy overall diets or some such, I'd probably agree with a lot that you say, but I see that as a separate topic and not support for OP's claims, either about the creamer or calories not being equal.

    (Personally, I lost weight once by changing how I ate, really mostly going back to how I ate growing up (whole foods based, mostly, reasonable amount of protein, lots of vegetables) with some additional twists. I later learned that I could gain weight even eating the "wholesome" foods I was, for the most part, but find it easier to avoid doing so without counting if I focus on a healthy diet and portions and don't snack much. Sometimes I like counting, sometimes I don't. And calories ARE equal.) ;-)
  • geneticexpectations
    geneticexpectations Posts: 146 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    geneticexpectations wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    geneticexpectations wrote: »
    I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."

    No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.

    I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)

    But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.

    Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!

    I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.

    But OP apparently doesn't, and I see such claims here all the time, so I am not sure that's at all clear.
    I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss?

    It's a way to control calories, sure. But that doesn't support OP's statement, and I think it's important to show the fact that ideas of magic foods that make you fat (in any amount) and foods that make you thin (regardless of calories) needs to be combated, because it's so common.

    If you wanted to start a thread about how food choice can be an approach to weight loss or maintenance or that one way to deal with societal obesity would be by encouraging healthy overall diets or some such, I'd probably agree with a lot that you say, but I see that as a separate topic and not support for OP's claims, either about the creamer or calories not being equal.

    (Personally, I lost weight once by changing how I ate, really mostly going back to how I ate growing up (whole foods based, mostly, reasonable amount of protein, lots of vegetables) with some additional twists. I later learned that I could gain weight even eating the "wholesome" foods I was, for the most part, but find it easier to avoid doing so without counting if I focus on a healthy diet and portions and don't snack much. Sometimes I like counting, sometimes I don't. And calories ARE equal.) ;-)

    Not looking for an exact answer to this because none of us can truly address this with certainty (at least I can't pretend to)- but I do wonder why obesity was much rarer in the times when we had no idea what a calorie was.
  • ominousdusk
    ominousdusk Posts: 62 Member
    TresaAswegan wrote: »
    I don't think we as humans can look back and say "last time I ate x calories and lost x pounds and now I lost faster" unless we have actually and honestly recorded everything 100% (which is basically impossible to do, we don't know accurate calories in EVERYTHING, and we aren't this honest with ourselves).
    I have had months where I think "I ate the same 2000 calories a day as I did last time, why didn't I lose any weight this month?" Well, I've overlooked all the days I DIDN'T actually eat that much and in fact ate MUCH more, or skipped many workouts etc.
    Sure I thought I was eating the same calories, but if I'm honest with myself I was eating more, doing less, and can't claim one to be better.

    no im pretty honest with myself and take my nutrition seriously. especially after having a baby because im nursing and would like to lose that extra weight quickly. I recorded everything religiously even use USDA values to be the most accurate. if there was any error it wouldn't have been enough to cause such a huge difference. I cannot eat at any more of a deficit than I am right now because my milk supply would suffer. so eating too much below my TDEE would not do me any favors.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories